 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bittner v. Huth6/21/2005
Murphy, C.J., Eyler, James R., Alpert, Paul E., (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.
In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Charles Bittner, his wife Juanita, and their daughter Julie Bittner, appellants, sued Baltimore County and several (named and unnamed) Baltimore County police officers, appellees. According to appellants, who reside at 6561 St. Helena Avenue in Baltimore City, several Baltimore County police officers committed an unlawful trespass upon the Bittner residence on October 7, 2002, when the officers made (1) a warrantless entry of the residence to arrest Mr. and Mrs. Bittner's son, Steven Bittner, and (2) a second warrantless entry after the officers had left the premises with Steven in custody. Appellees argued that, even though almost all of the events at issue occurred in Baltimore City, appellants should be required to litigate their claims in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The circuit court agreed with appellees' venue argument, and this appeal followed, in which appellants present three questions for our review:
I. Did the trial court improperly transfer venue to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County?
II. Did the lower court improperly dismiss the Bittners' trespass to land claim?
III. Did the lower court improperly make factual findings and improperly consider arguments and papers offered by appellees in connection with their reply motion?
For the reasons that follow, we answer "yes" to questions I and II. We shall therefore remand this case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
The Ruling at Issue
Subsequent to a December 29, 2003 motions hearing, the circuit court filed a Memorandum Opinion and Order that included the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
In the case at bar, Steven Bittner committed a misdemeanor in the presence of Baltimore County Police Officers and fled to his home. The Officers followed him, entered the house, arrested him and shortly thereafter searched the Bittner home. (The Court infers that the search was shortly after Steven Bittner and the other men were arrested and removed from the house based on paragraphs 8-10 of the Bittner affidavit.) The Baltimore County Officers in this case had at least the same degree of good faith and reasonable belief in the appropriateness of their actions as the Deputies in Ford [v. Baltimore City Sheriff's Office, 149 Md. App. 107 (2002)]. They were in pursuit of someone they witnessed commit a crime and, accordingly, had a privilege against trespass to enter the Bittner home. The plaintiffs argue that even if the first entry by the Defendant Officers was justified, the second was not. On the information before this Court as to the second entry into the home, there is nothing to establish, or even suggest, that the Officers' good faith and reasonable belief as to the propriety of their actions did not extend to the second entry of the home shortly after the first. Accordingly the second trespass was also privileged as against a trespass action.
For these reasons, the Court finds that an action for trespass to land will not support venue in Baltimore City. (The Court is not dismissing the trespass claim for procedural reasons and because the allegations of the complaint can also be construed as a trespass to personal property which this Court has not had reason to address. This decision is without prejudice. The defendants may move to dismiss in the transferee jurisdiction.) Therefore, venue does not lie in Baltimore City pursuant to section 6-203(b)(4) of the Courts and Judicial Procedure Article. Rather it lies in Baltimore Co
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|